Why proximity to power matters more than proof - and why that should worry us
THE release of the Epstein Files has triggered political tremors far beyond the United States. In India, the reverberations have been uneasy, contested, and politically charged. What began as a global reckoning with the network of a convicted sex offender – Jeffrey Epstein – has now opened uncomfortable questions about proximity, access, and the shadowy corridors where business, politics, and influence intersect.
Documents emerging from these disclosures suggest that Epstein’s outreach extended into Indian elite circles – touching figures such as Hardeep Singh Puri and business networks linked to Anil Ambani. While much of this contact appears, on the surface, to revolve around networking or investment facilitation, the deeper concern is not merely what happened, but why Epstein remained welcome in influential spaces long after his 2008 conviction.
Discredited Broker
One of the most striking features of the Epstein disclosures is the portrait of a man who, despite public disgrace, continued to operate as a self-styled intermediary in global power networks. The files suggest that Epstein positioned himself as a broker – someone who could open doors, arrange introductions, and facilitate conversations between political leaders, business magnates, and geopolitical actors.
Evidence emerging from court documents, survivor testimonies, and investigative reporting indicates that Jeffrey Epstein’s private island—often referred to as “Little St. James”—was not merely a secluded luxury retreat, but a site where systematic sexual exploitation occurred. Testimonies presented in cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell describe the recruitment and trafficking of underage girls, some of whom were transported to the island under coercive conditions. Flight logs, financial records, and legal proceedings in US courts have further corroborated patterns of organised abuse, pointing to a network that enabled and concealed acts of paedophilia under the guise of elite social gatherings. While not all individuals associated with Epstein have been proven complicit, the weight of verified evidence leaves little doubt that the island functioned as a hub for deeply exploitative and criminal activity.
In the Indian context, communications attributed to Hardeep Singh Puri – including reported meetings at Epstein’s Manhattan residence – have been described by those involved as professional or investment-oriented engagements. Similarly, reported contacts involving Anil Ambani indicate that Epstein attempted to project influence within high-level business and political circles, presenting himself as someone with access to the upper echelons of American and Israeli power.
Yet, what stands out in many of these interactions is their asymmetry. Much of the available material suggests that Epstein was the one initiating contact – sending messages, making offers, and positioning himself as useful. In several cases, the communication appears one-sided, raising the possibility that his influence may have been overstated or self-manufactured.
But this does not diminish the significance of the outreach itself. The fact that such overtures were not immediately rejected – or that they occasionally resulted in meetings—points to a deeper structural reality: that access, once acquired, is rarely scrutinised as rigorously as it ought to be.
Access After Conviction
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these revelations is not the content of the interactions, but their timing. Many of the contacts referenced in the Epstein files occurred well after his 2008 conviction for sex-related offences. By then, Epstein’s criminal history was a matter of public record.
And yet, the documents suggest that he continued to find entry points into elite networks – engaging with individuals across political and corporate spheres. This persistence raises difficult questions about the ethical thresholds that govern access to power.
Why would a figure with such a tainted record still be considered a legitimate interlocutor? Was it ignorance, indifference, or the calculated prioritisation of perceived utility over moral judgment?
These questions are not unique to India. They reflect a broader global pattern in which elite networks often operate according to their own internal logics – where reputation can be compartmentalised, and where access is valued not for its ethical grounding, but for its strategic advantage.
Global Web of Influence
To view the Indian references in isolation would be misleading. The Epstein files have implicated, or at least referenced, a wide array of global figures across political and economic spheres. Names such as Donald Trump and Bill Clinton have surfaced in various contexts, though not conclusively as evidence of wrongdoing.
The broader picture that emerges is one of a transnational network – an ecosystem in which influence flows across borders, and where individuals like Epstein attempt to embed themselves by offering access, information, or connections. In this sense, Epstein was not merely an outlier but a facilitator operating within an already permissive system.
Reports from the files suggest that Epstein attempted to connect Indian business and political actors with figures in the United States and Israel, including efforts to position himself as an intermediary in discussions involving strategic or financial interests. Some claims – such as those suggesting involvement in high-level diplomatic engagements—have been dismissed by Indian authorities as baseless. Yet, their very articulation reflects the extent to which Epstein sought to project himself as a player in geopolitical spaces.
Politics, Denial, and Instrumentalisation
In India, the political response to these revelations has been predictably polarised. Opposition leaders have called for investigations, framing the issue as one of transparency, accountability, and national integrity. The government and those named have responded by downplaying the significance of the contacts, emphasising the absence of evidence linking them to Epstein’s criminal activities.
The Ministry of External Affairs has dismissed certain claims as “trashy ruminations” or unsubstantiated assertions. This defence is not without basis; the available material does not establish direct wrongdoing on the part of Indian individuals.
However, the absence of proof is not the same as the absence of concern.
Political figures, such as Subramanian Swamy, have called for greater disclosure, while Rahul Gandhi has gone further – suggesting that unreleased elements of the Epstein files may have intersected with geopolitical negotiations involving Narendra Modi. These claims remain speculative and contested, but they illustrate how the issue has been drawn into the arena of political contestation.
In this environment, the Epstein files risk becoming less a tool of truth and more an instrument of narrative – deployed selectively, interpreted strategically, and contested fiercely.
The Battle for Transparency
The controversy in India is inseparable from the larger struggle unfolding in the United States over the release of the Epstein files. Despite the disclosure of millions of pages under legislative mandate, significant volumes remain withheld or heavily redacted. Lawmakers, activists, and survivors have criticised these delays, arguing that selective transparency protects the powerful while perpetuating injustice.
The debate over redactions, particularly concerning the names of high-profile individuals, has intensified concerns about whether the process is being shaped by political considerations rather than a commitment to full disclosure. This raises a fundamental question: who controls the narrative of accountability?
If the release of information is partial, delayed, or filtered, then the truth itself becomes contingent—revealed not in full, but in fragments. And in those fragments, ambiguity thrives.
Beyond Guilt: The Ethics of Proximity
What ultimately emerges from the Epstein disclosures is not a clear narrative of culpability, but a more complex and unsettling picture of proximity. There is, as yet, no definitive evidence that Indian political or business figures were complicit in Epstein’s crimes. But there is enough to suggest contact, engagement, and – at the very least – an openness to interaction.
And perhaps that is where the real issue lies.
In systems of power, proximity is rarely neutral. It confers legitimacy, signals acceptance, and creates pathways for further engagement. To be in the orbit of power is, in itself, a form of influence.
The question, then, is not whether every interaction implies wrongdoing. It is whether the structures of power are sufficiently robust to exclude those whose presence should, by any reasonable ethical standard, be unacceptable.
A System, Not an Exception
The Epstein saga is often framed as the story of a single individual—his crimes, his network, his downfall. But this framing risks obscuring the larger reality.
Epstein was not merely an aberration. He was a product of a system that allowed access to override accountability, that enabled reputation to be compartmentalised, and that tolerated proximity where it should have enforced distance.
In India, as elsewhere, the question is not simply who knew Epstein, or who met him, or who responded to his messages. The question is whether the systems that govern access to power are capable of recognising—and rejecting—those who seek to exploit them.
Until that question is answered with clarity and conviction, the release of documents, however extensive, will remain incomplete. What we are witnessing, then, is not closure – but containment.
Figures such as Hardeep Singh Puri and networks linked to Anil Ambani may well be right in asserting that their interactions were limited, professional, or inconsequential. There is, at present, no evidence to suggest complicity in Epstein’s crimes. But the discomfort does not arise from proven wrongdoing – it arises from the ease with which access appears to have been granted, and the difficulty with which it is now explained.
That discomfort is not a verdict. It is a warning.
It is also a reminder that power does not operate in isolation. It is sustained by networks—of trust, of influence, of convenience. And when those networks fail to draw ethical boundaries, they do not merely risk embarrassment; they risk becoming conduits for actors who thrive precisely in such ambiguity.
The ongoing struggle in the United States to fully unseal the Epstein files—amid redactions, delays, and allegations of selective disclosure—suggests that the full story remains fragmented. Names may emerge, claims may be contested, and narratives will continue to be shaped by political interest. But the deeper issue will remain unchanged.
Transparency, when partial, is not resolution. It is management.
And so, the Epstein files leave us not with answers, but with a test—of institutions, of political culture, and of public memory. Whether that test leads to accountability or is absorbed into the routine cycles of denial and deflection will determine whether this moment becomes a turning point—or just another episode quietly filed away.
Until then, what we are witnessing is not closure.
It is a system learning, once again, how to contain the truth.
_______________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
